Cosmological trans-Planckian conjectures are not effective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract It is remarkable that the primordial fluctuations as revealed by the CMB coincide with what quantum fluctuations would look like if they were stretched across the sky by accelerated cosmic expansion. It has been observed that this same stretching also brings very small — even trans-Planckian — length scales up to observable sizes if extrapolated far enough into the past. This potentially jeopardizes later descriptions of late-time cosmology by introducing uncontrolled trans-Planckian theoretical errors into all calculations. Recent speculations, such as the Trans-Planckian Censorship Conjecture (TCC), have been developed to avoid this problem. We revisit old arguments why the consistency of (and control over) the Effective Field Theory (EFT) governing late-time cosmology is not necessarily threatened by the descent of modes due to universal expansion, even if EFT methods may break down at much earlier times. Failure of EFT methods only poses a problem if late-time predictions rely on non-adiabatic behaviour at these early times (such as is often true for bouncing cosmologies, for example). We illustrate our arguments using simple non-gravitational examples such as slowly rolling scalar fields and the spacing between Landau levels for charged particles in slowly varying magnetic fields, for which similar issues arise and are easier to understand. We comment on issues associated with UV completions. Our arguments need not invalidate speculative ideas like the TCC but suggest they are not required by the present evidence.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".